Wednesday, 15 February 2017

No we don't need any more nuclear power stations to power electric cars

Desperate to cover the latest catastrophic meltdown to hit the nuclear industry as Toshiba sinks under the weight of its failures to construct nuclear power plant through its Westinghouse subsidiary, nuclear supporters are spreading fake news about the alleged need for new nuclear power stations to power electric cars.Last Saturday the Times published a headline stating 'Electric cars mean UK could need 20 new nuclear plants'. I organised the submission of a letter to the Times objecting to the headline. The letter has not been printed, although today they did carry a correction (lower left hand corner, page 26) that the headline ‘was a significant
miscalculation based on a confusion of energy and power. We apologise for the
mistake’.Yet, the headline and story was repeated by The Mail on the very day the Times retracted it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215622/20-new-nuclear-power-stations-needed-electric-cars.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUKWill the Mail also carry an apology? I doubt it. Of course, as could be expected, far from the Toshiba meltdown causing the UK Government to re-think its nuclear strategy, there are reports that the UK Government is now considering putting billions of pounds of taxpayers money at risk to prop up the failing Moorside nuclear project. Moorside is dependent on the AP1000 reactor design that has failed so miserably and catastrophically to be delivered in the USA (in South Carolina and Georgia). It has ruined Toshiba. Up until now the Hinkley C project (to be developed by EDF) is relying on a 35 year payment of £92.50 in (2012 prices - now about £97/MWh) and on EDF being propped up by large infusions of cash from the French Government. The electricity consumer will have to pay for Hinkley C, but no more than £2 billion of taxpayers money is being risked as a guaranteed loan. But now people seriously expect the Government to step in as equity providers for Moorside where no company in the world would have the madness to risk their money without a Government guarantee to foot the bill. Indeed the taxpayer plan to fund Moorside is likely to escalate so that tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money could do down a nuclear black hole, as well as the electricity consumer paying over the odds for 35 years. See https://www.ft.com/content/fc9d036e-ea44-11e6-967b-c88452263dafIt is surely madcap politics to take as a lesson from the fact that a technology is failing for the Government to re-double its efforts to back it - pouring tens of billions of money that could be spent on public services (that is already in very short supply) down the drain for power plant that may take several decades to be built.Meanwhile of course wind and solar pv farms don't need any taxpayer money. They can be built at lower prices than nuclear power - but of course the Government is only now issuing contracts for nuclear power!Paul Dorfman made some useful comment on the Toshiba meltdown at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXA8NsM1W7c&app=desktopSee our letter below:

Sir,

We are concerned about the highly tendentious headline ‘Electric cars mean UK
could need 20 new nuclear plants’ (report February 11th). The story speculated
about the need for increased electricity supply.

The headline implies dogmatically that increases in non-fossil generation can
only come from nuclear power rather than green energy. Why not speculate instead
about the number of windfarms, solar farms or energy efficiency measures
needed?

The changing profile of UK electricity requires a flexible supply system based
on variable renewable energy, storage, power plant reserves and responsive
demand and charging systems - not outdated, inflexible and, so far,
undeliverable nuclear power.

In the last 15 years renewable energy has expanded from around 3 per cent to
what will soon be 30 per cent of UK electricity consumption. In the same period
not a single nuclear power plant has come on line, nor is likely to at least
until 2026, and even then only with luck and huge expense.

Signatories:

Corresponding signatory:
Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Politics, University of Aberdeen, tel
07583568643, email: d.toke@abdn.ac.uk,
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen,
Kings College, Aberdeen AB24 3QY

About Me

Dr David Toke is Reader in Energy Politics in the Department of Politics and International Relations in the University of Aberdeen. You can see his profile at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/socsci/people/profiles/d.toke
He has been campaigning on energy issues for around 30 years, and in 1990 his book ‘Green Energy’ was an influential argument in the UK for a non-nuclear approach to dealing with global warming. He was a key player in the campaign to establish feed-in tariffs for small renewable projects in the UK, achieved in 2008. He has consistently argued that the UK's proposed nuclear power programme is not only uneconomic compared to renewable energy, but that it is undeliverable short of one or more governments signing what amounts to a 'blank cheque' to pay for the nuclear power plant. His latest book, published by Routledge is called 'Low Carbon Politics'. He has published many papers in leading political science journals on environmental, especially energy (and renewable energy) issues and he is also a frequent and well cited contributor to the journal 'Energy Policy' published by Elsevier. His twitter address is @DaveToke